Maggie's Farm

Hmm indeed. Not a valid data point if one is using it to measure the economic health of the state in comparison to other states or the economic conditions for the median resident.

A better data point for those two purposes would be per capita GDP indexed to cost of living. California sets in the bottom quintile for that ranking. Another data point which would be more useful would be net domestic migration, which California probably sets in the bottom decile. Total population growth/decline (%) would also be useful. Again, California probably sets in the bottom decile, and is certainly in the bottom quintile.

If you have a point, maybe find a better argument for it.

Although, I will say that I'm picturing One Guy as being out on a ledge while he's typing his comment and being especially oblivious when advancing the notion that Hispanics are the drivers of the political and social insanity of California.

I'm disinclined to accept you as the world's foremost authority on what One guy was referring to with the hyperbolic phrase "bled dry." I feel pretty confident that the first thing on his mind was not how much VC went to California or their GDP. It seems likely that his first thought wasn't even economic, but social or political.

But let's go with your notion of it being about California's econ0mic performance. VC allocation is often a lagging indicator since many investors have a constancy bias. That said, California's % of national VC has declined a little over the last few years. And "real per capita GDP" is not the same thing as per capita GDP indexed to cost of living.

California is tied with Mass. for the third highest Gini Coefficient of any state. That disparity is likely to grow as the people migrating out are disproportionately middle class. Cali's fertility rate will continue to drop rapidly since millennials are migrating to states with a lower COL so they can afford children.

All of those are facts that indicate that California's economy is not healthy, and is not serving its median resident well. The advantages they have in terms of climate, scenery, geography and natural resources makes this failure even more pathetic.

"California hit 43% of all U.S. venture capital in Q3 2023." FYI, the link says 46%, not 43%. Either way, it's a classic example of cherry picking. It was 36% in Q2 2023. An honest person would have mentioned that. Or better would have the data for the last 40 quarters. I'll add, that % dramatically overstates California's VC haul, as much VC is credited to the corporate HQ of the recipient, not where the money is ultimately spent. Even very young California IT startups are contracting out much work and hiring remote workers to/in other states, meaning the actual VC expenditure is occurring in those other states.

"Cost of living varies widely across California" True in all states. Which is why you use the average when comparing states. "You can buy a nice home for about $150,000 in the San Fernando Valley" BS. Average home sale price in the San Fernando valley is $840,000. A quick pursual of realtor.com indicates that a small (

Huh. Annoying, my comment got cut off:
...(